787 battery diagrams

Boeing Monday (Feb. 18) made available two battery diagrams for the 787 lithium-ion batteries.

Diagram #1

Diagram #2

  • The New York Times has a Reuters article revealing the second battery on the ANA 787 had some swelling.
  • Boeing was seeking extended ETOPS prior to the incidents, according to this article.
  • Bloomberg News has this long article on the prospect of a SPEEA strike vote tonight.
  • Where’s Waldo is a famous game. Where are the grounded 787s? See here to find out.

79 comments on “787 battery diagrams

  1. Looks like what I would have expected.

    Anode : Aluminium : explains the “burned away” pictures. pure Alu bolts are imho problematic.

    current sensor : Looks like a Hal device, Those tend to be fickle ( offset characteristic
    trend in power electronics to use shunt resistors. Mostly “defined” pieces of interconnect. )

    missing:
    The undamaged visible cells from photos circulated had capton tape wrapped around the upper edge of the cell case.

    The “blue boxes” for each set of 4 cells were not visible in those fold away photos.
    ( the spacer plates (bronce/pink) must have been taken out, ok )

    the setup shows than any cell expansion will invariably exert pressure on the rest of the pack.
    and will also bring tension on the cell interconnects.
    To summ it up a design for vented NiCd cells and no further active components was
    borrowed for housing nonvented cells and a lot of additional components.
    Bad design. ( Still think a japanese engineer would cringe )

  2. Putting the battery monitoring unit INSIDE the box ?

    Must have looked neat on the power point presentations

    same with the current sensor

    Neat_-0

    Fancy blue cover

    Outstanding !

    And stolen from another post on BA message board

    How will the BARF teams (Battery Airworthiness Readiness Force) working on the dumbest fix imaginable: adding hot gas manifolds to exhaust flaming battery debris overboard! . . .

    Flaming idiots !!

    • Don Shuper :
      Putting the battery monitoring unit INSIDE the box ?
      Must have looked neat on the power point presentations
      same with the current sensor

      Don, I’ve read many other posts making the same point about this decision, but IF the unit constantly uploads the data it records to the charging unit for logging would that change your view? Others have pointed out that locating the sensor unit outside the box would greatly increase the complexity of the connectors. Isn’t it better to have the sensor in the box and a single data connection to the charger than a jumble of sensor wires coming out of the battery.

      I do recall that there were stories from either the NTSB or JTSB inquiry a while back about not being able to recover key battery state data because the internal sensor boards were damaged. Still that seems to me to be a flaw in the scheme for what data is uploaded off the battery and when, not necessarily the location of the monitoring unit. Do you disagree?

      • … Do you disagree?..

        YEP ! IMHO what happens when ONE bad cell can take out all monitoring and sensing equipment and data ? That is why they have yet to establish what really happened and why.

        Ditto for sensing leads which may have been on each cell- not obvious- but one failure wiping out the circuit board and sensor (s) is IMHO poor design.

        And why would anyone use copper and aluminum bus bars in an environment that may have heat cold issues ?

        Copper aluminum house wiring is not in vogue either ?

      • Don Shuper :
        YEP ! IMHO what happens when ONE bad cell can take out all monitoring and sensing equipment and data ? That is why they have yet to establish what really happened and why.

        Thanks – that was what I wanted to understand.

      • Having the supervisory circuitry integral to the battery assembly is ok for me. ( keep elements and info that comprise a matched unit together. (historic) parametric info on cell behaviour should preferably stay with “their” cells.)
        But I would prefer to have them segregated from the cell space.
        (external “backpack” box ? see to it that bat health info is also stored away from the battery )
        ‘See that a cell burst does not evacuate into the cell interconnection space. ( burst plates (2/cell) are on the upper third of the small sides ). IMHo an external “barf bag” solution
        is preferable to an armored containment. A full containment in the limited space of the bat.box would imho ascertain that all cells will follow the first cell in going runaway. expect pressure beyond 3..400psi and high temps.

  3. Boeing seem to be on a major PR offensive for their battery design approach, as seen on Randly’s blog and the http://www.newairplane.com website.

    It’s a strange proposition because it takes no account whatever of the reason why no 787s are flying today: ttwo major battery fires

    <blockquote
    newairplane.com :
    Boeing designs airplanes with two key objectives in mind: design to prevent failures, and design in protections in case they do

    Boeing failed on both objectives.

    • Relax and watch the pretty pictures !

      Sign here for your new- improved Edsel !

      We give away a free smoke mask with every purchase and two weeks vacation in east nowhere.

      • It seems to me that Boeing are in a “When did you stop beating your wife?” situation. Were they (A) reckless in implementing a novel and volatile battery technology, as evidenced by the two fires. Or were they (B) incompetent in implementing a battery technology that others have used for years without incident?

        It could be a bit of both but I incline more to (B). (B) is also the right answer if Boeing want to continue using Li-ion, as they seem desperate to do. In that case, it may not be a good idea to trumpet the “features” and the (unimpressive) statistics of their current setup .

        • well ana just put out info that the “other’ battery on the ana jet in japan that landed due to smoke, etc has ‘ swollen cells” and they dont know if that is within specs, etc.

          Looking at the design of the box etc, it is not obvious that there is much room for sweliing

          ” But it worked on our power point presentation and our tests on ONE cell !!”

        • If you are incompetent ( lack understanding and experience ) you are also reckless. that is automatic imho.
          Boeing wanted to take more than two steps as one : use Li-Ion at all. use Li-Ion in a core function. use Li-Ion special properties to its fullest.. All in one go.

          What I have trouble understanding is why Thales appears to have followed Boeing without any protest or warning?
          Or did Thales get themselves a waver from Boeing “you get what you asked for, we warned you” .
          No “bad supplier” accusations from Boeing no defensive press releases from the “risk sharing” partners.
          Strange, strange, strange.

      • I mean, is the idea bad or is the implementation bad? That seems to me to be key for what happens next. If you expect fires to break out when using Li Ion then it’s not an appropriate technology to use. If you don’t expect fires, then why did they happen on the 787 and why should we believe they will stop now?

  4. Don Shuper :
    And why would anyone use copper and aluminum bus bars in an environment that may have heat cold issues ?

    What material would you suggest they should have used?

    • Normand Hamel :

      Don Shuper :
      And why would anyone use copper and aluminum bus bars in an environment that may have heat cold issues ?

      What material would you suggest they should have used?

      copper and copper alloys suitably arranged to accomodate flexing as battery heats up and cools down. Copper is not very good with continuous flexing, but some alloys are better than others. Aluminum is lighter, and works well on large high voltage transmission lines, but are built in sort of a spiral toungue and groove method.

      Aluminum has a nasty habit of forming alumin oxide which in time makes a poor insulator.

      And in the extreme- case is known as ‘ anodizing ‘ if dipped in suitable acid bath. Anodized aluminum is NOT a good conductor as I recall.

      But again, I am not a battery designer – or electrical engineer- but have worked with instrumentation in my more decadent days as a test engine-ear

      IMO- the battery design-box shown touted by Boeing looks like the driving force was faster- cheaper – and virtually NO systems engineering or what if considerations for a KNOWN fire hazard.

  5. Reuters:

    “…It is a slight swelling (in the auxiliary power unit battery cells).”

    That makes it almost three battery incidents. We can assume that this particular unit was ready to burst like the other two did. If we add the 100 + batteries that had to be replaced prematurely, not as normal maintenance like Boeing pretends, it means that the problems with the battery system are statistically alarming and indicative of a fundamental problem rather than a simple manufacturing defect.

      • When I worked for a maglev company in Germany we had to design a secure emergency stop system ( “Bahntechnisch Sicher” ) on short notice, designed to expose single errors but not double errors.
        For a system once brought online we were not allowed to switch it of longer than the minimun expectable time of two errors accuring. ( switch on with two errors developed during downtime and the savety assurance ( expose single error ) was broken.)

      • Next logical question is how many of the returned batteries showed signs of cell swelling and if this number is greater than zero what did Boeing or Yussa do about it as they sure as heck didn’t inform the FAA who were unaware of the returns.

      • ‘Monju sodium leak’ ? Yes.

        With the disctinct difference that deception and cover up was integrated into the 787 project from day one, premeditated to the hilt, nothing reactive visible.
        Long before any bubbles became visible. ( and definitely not limited to batteries.)
        A lot was taken from the Bush administration. Insert your people upstream ( into FAA : “but the plane is certified by FAA” ) and “win/win” (also known as embedded ) dendrites inserted into the press corp fascilitating all that positive reporting, suffocating critical reporting with pervasive “us” feeling.
        The “Schadenfreude” ( to take up Howard ) aspect here is :
        it did not work long enough. There is blowback all around.

  6. Don Shuper :
    well ana just put out info that the “other’ battery on the ana jet in japan that landed due to smoke, etc has ‘ swollen cells” and they dont know if that is within specs, etc.
    Looking at the design of the box etc, it is not obvious that there is much room for sweliing
    ” But it worked on our power point presentation and our tests on ONE cell !!”

    I’ve been wondering about that new detail of the ANA APU battery as well… it does seem to suggest there may be a lot more damaged batteries in the current fleet than the two we knew about.

  7. When we had the two battery incidents in January I immediately saw the contradiction with ETOPS principles. Clive Irving, the author of “Wide-Body: The Triumph of the 747″, offers a detailed explanation of the importance of this issue for the Dreamliner.

    - “Boeing, despite its use of relatively unproven technology in the new jet, appears to have been impatient to get such clearance [ETOPS 330].”

    - “The FAA resisted the requests from Boeing, arguing that the 787 had not accumulated anything like enough hours of operation for them to be able to judge if it was safe to extend its flight range.”

    - “In fact, the regime that allows these “optimum range” flights has never before faced a problem as serious as the one that has shown up in the 787, aviation experts say. As a result, there is no precedent for how regulators should deal with it.”

    - “Then, in one week, came the two battery meltdowns. The first, in Boston, involved a fire while an empty Japan Airlines airplane was parked at the gate. But the second, in Japan, happened in flight and had serious implications for the ETOPS certification.”

    - “They either ignored or didn’t realize the possibility of something like this.”

    - “One of the ideas being mulled by Boeing, once the cause of the battery meltdowns is identified, is to reinforce the insulation of the battery case so that any future flare-up can be isolated and contained. But that implies that the FAA would tolerate the idea that a meltdown can happen in flight without jeopardizing safety (smoke and fire are the most feared threats to an airplane in flight and are extremely rare events).”

    - “But in view of what has so far emerged, the agency’s resistance to Boeing’s desire to accelerate the rating to 330 minutes has likely hardened. As it is, the key question for airlines now is not simply, when can we get this airplane back in the air, but how far can it fly?”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/19/boeing-s-dashed-flight-plan.html

    • I would expect all failures happening to be relevant for ETOPS reliability.
      IMU ETOPS works on a trail of proven reliable parts and practices.
      If equipments barfs on the ground it is a reliablity issue just like if it was in flight.

    • Any idea if this could be an issue for the future Air New Zealand 787-9 fleet? Of course, they have ETOPS 330 certified 777-300 ER’s. But could a slower than expected ETOPS certification force them to use the 789′s on ETOPS 180 flights (US West Coast) and not on more challenging routes (South Africa / South America)?

  8. Maybe a random sampling of batteries from the grounded fleet should be undertaken.
    Strip down of a few may just identify what is causing the problem if any symptoms are discovered.

    • Any (anti)parallels to A380 rib cracks?
      Imagine Airbus having kept mum about the cracks found on QF32.
      ( exposure during the next structural check is known to have been been sufficiently early.)
      Most of the contributors on aero sites that went postal over those cracks are now exceedingly busy to downplay any battery non fires. You’d think they all had Jesuit training ;-)

  9. FF :
    I mean, is the idea bad or is the implementation bad? That seems to me to be key for what happens next.

    Both are bad. Li-ion is a bad idea and containment will not make it a good one.

    FF :
    If you expect fires to break out when using Li Ion then it’s not an appropriate technology to use.

    According to the NTSB, fires are not expected on board aircraft. In my book that translates into “Li-ion batteries are not expected on board aircraft.,” i.e. Li-ion = Fire.

    Therefore one can see a contradiction in the following NTSB statements:

    1- We do not expect fires on board aircraft.
    2- We are not necessarily against Li-ion batteries on board aircraft.

    These two statements cannot both be true at the same time.

    • Either the NTSB hasn’t come to a conclusion as to whether the idea or the implementation is bad,, or they think lithium ion is basically acceptable but the implementation sucks. There is only a contradiction between your statements if you think the idea is bad and it doesn’t matter what the airframer does with its lithium ion batteries.

      Lithium ion batteries are used in hundreds of thousands of cars with very few incidents.

      • Nevertheless, I don’t personally see any quick solutions for Boeing. Any lithium ion battery will have to be a rigorously good battery to be acceptable, and thus much changed from the substandard effort Boeing has produced so far.

  10. A few months ago – re 787 electrical we heard these wunnerful words from Delaney -Chief Engin- ear

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-06/boeing-may-use-engineers-beyond-hub-if-union-balks-on-pay.html

    Boeing has been able to draw on companywide engineering resources to solve previous crises, Delaney said. Engineers in Philadelphia were critical in fixing the 787’s problematic side- of-body joint, and Boeing’s space team in Houston and engineers in Huntsville helped with the Dreamliner’s new electrical power system, said Delaney, who was the 787’s chief engineer.

    Be careful what you ask for ….

    • Delaney:

      “Now we’re in the same place as southern California and the Washington, D.C., area in terms of cost to do engineering. Those are the three most expensive places in the country to do engineering.”

      When a corporation treat its engineers like if they were a commodity, it kills the creativity of those engineers. And if in addition to that you neglect to invest in new aircraft programs you quickly lose your number one position.

      The Boeing might was developed by its corps of engineers. If Boeing wants to continue to thrive it will have to look back at what made it so successful in the past and find new ways to motivate its engineering workforce.

  11. FF :
    Any lithium ion battery will have to be a rigorously good battery to be acceptable, and thus much changed from the substandard effort Boeing has produced so far.

    It’s always possible that the NTSB, and maybe also the FAA, will arrive at a compromise over Lithium-ion. For example, Lithium-Cobalt could be banned from aircraft, but not the other more stable variants of the technology.

    One way or another, Boeing is facing the genuine possibility of having to redesign and recertify the whole battery system. If not the entire electrical system.

    And whatever solution Boeing comes up with, it will have to convince the following parties:

    1- Flying public
    2- Political authorities
    3- Governmental agencies (NTSB + FAA)
    4- International agencies (ICAO + IATA)
    5- Airlines
    6- Airline pilots associations
    7- Insurance companies

  12. Mermoz :
    Any idea if this could be an issue for the future Air New Zealand 787-9 fleet?

    The first thing that the Dreamliner lost when the world fleet was grounded is its ETOPS qualifications.

    When the Dreamliner will go back in service it will probably have to requalify for ETOPS. In other words it will have to prove itself again. And this is a gradual process.

    Boeing was aiming for 330 minutes ETOPS and the FAA was reluctant because of all the new technology. Now that it has proved the opposite of what was expected for ETOPS, it will be even harder in the future to convince the FAA to authorize very long legs. Basically the 787 will have to start the process all over again and many airlines will have to wait longer than expected before they will be able to fly those destinations with the 787.

    Some times when you are in a dream there are certain things that you are trying to reach but which keep moving away farther all the time. In that sense the Dreamliner name was quite fitting for the 787.

  13. demistro :
    Next logical question is how many of the returned batteries showed signs of cell swelling.

    I always thought that this would be part of the investigation. I imagined that all existing 787 batteries would be quarantined and examined one by one in due time. Of course this is a very long process because of the great number of batteries involved. I even mentioned in a previous post that maybe the NTSB could “subcontract” the task to the GS Yuasa.

    They should focus on the 100 + that were removed long before they were supposed to. If they see any deformation it should go on the operation table automatically. But very few people are qualified to do this work and it is therefore an almost impossible task to accomplish in a reasonable amount of time.

    • Yes, but how many of this 100 still exist? I doubt that many do. As this was not considered a safety issue they were probably recycled or torn down in some way without their physical condition being noted.

      • Has this aircraft been repaired? Would it be ready to fly to its home base if ferry flights were authorized?

        In any case the white covering of the aircraft is to avoid bad publicity for JAL. But unfortunately it does nothing to improve Boeing’s image. We are accustomed to see “white tail” Dreamliners, at least in Paine Field. Except this time it’s pain field, as in pain full. And it’s around the world. :(

      • Give a summer intern an old NICd battery as template and tell him to adapt this to fit 8 Li-Ion cells, a pair of pcbs, a current probe, a contactor. you get “tada” a blue meanie ;-)

        That person was bright enough to make the step to isolating the cells as NICd cell body is nylon and the Li-Ion cell enclosure is metal ( what actually : stainless, covar, .. ?? )

        I just can’t get at the “disinterest” ( for lack of a better word) shown from this process. No one bothered about details.
        Looks like clicking through eBay for ticking of some BOM.

        The only department that shows deep involvement are the PR boys. Those have been really working hard for their money.

  14. Demistro :
    Yes, but how many of this 100 still exist? …They were probably recycled or torn down…

    Some were removed because following a low charge condition they were automatically “locked”. I assume those units were all returned to the factory where a procedure must be in place to inspect the battery, and if nothing wrong is found it would be “unlocked”, recharged and maybe returned to service?

    Anyway, there must be some documents for each battery, with a filed maintenance record. And in addition to the 100 + batteries that were removed there are the 100 + (50 X 2) that are inside the grounded aircraft. Those should all be inspected one by one, and in some cases dismantled.

    That brings the total battery count to more than 200. There is possibly a gold mine of information to be found inside all those batteries. But if indeed they do find a few things wrong, or a pattern, it does not mean that it would come from defective batteries. But it could lead the investigators on a new trail.

    In parallel with the batteries they probably will have to do some tests on the aircraft electrical system. I recall that when the Comet was grounded they took one aircraft in the air and they tested it like they had never done before. Boeing might have to do something similar in order to find the root cause.

    • Regarding the Comet. Yes, but… The guys who went up in that plane probably served in Bomber Command during the war, so their risk perception was not ‘normal’. I don’t think that’s an appropriate testing approach these days.

      • Actually they were all volunteers. No one was forced. That kind of reinforces your point. But I still maintain that extensive flight testing, after appropriate ground testing, is required in order to find the root cause. But not before handing a parachute to each crew member. ;)

  15. OH OH – there is NO- repeat NO excuse for the following

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/20/172485845/japan-probe-of-battery-fire-on-boeing-787-finds-improper-wiring

    Two reports on troubles with lithium ion batteries aboard Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner:

    In Japan, where a battery on an All Nippon Airlines 787 overheated and began smoking on Jan. 16, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing, the Transport Ministry released a report Wednesday saying it found that the battery in question had been improperly wired.

    The Associated Press, citing the Transport Ministry report, said the ANA 787′s auxiliary power unit was incorrectly connected to the main battery that overheated. The incident prompted the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and authorities in other countries to ground 787s worldwide.

    According to the AP, on the ANA flight, the Japanese Transport Ministry noted:

    Flickering of the plane’s tail and wing lights after it landed and the fact the main battery was switched off led the investigators to conclude there was an abnormal current traveling from the APU due to miswiring.

    However, the ministry said it still needed further investigation to determine the exactly what caused the main battery to overheat.

    trying to find verification

    • “flickering” : ground returns done wrong, missing or corroded away already ?

      wonder when jounalists start to choke on the “revolutionary” tag
      and the dispense the seem to associate with it.

    • slightly more detail :
      http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/02/boeing-to-propose-dreamliner-battery-fixes-regulators-find-improper-wiring-in-ana-aircraft/
      “Japan’s Transport Safety Board released a report that stated that the battery of the Dreamliner’s auxiliary power unit had been incorrectly connected to the main lithium-ion battery that overheated. It further stated that a protective value would have presented power from the APU from causing any damage.”

      Would explain the limited service life ( significant abuse, my earlier guess )
      and why both battery positions show rather similar faults.

      • Well- the vendor of the involved wiring harness probably used the local car stereo installation shop for design- and got the left side speaker cable mixed up with the center rear boom box set

      • “Wrong wiring setup.”

        As an explanation only valid if it is present across all delivered frames.
        Should testing after completion not expose this kind of error?
        Harness manufactured to the wrong spec?
        Wrong installation instruction for the harness?
        Some other systemic mismatch?

  16. from WSJ

    Japan to Probe Boeing 787 Wiring

    By YOSHIO TAKAHASHI

    TOKYO—The head of a Japanese air-safety organization looking into battery problems on a Boeing Co. BA +1.51% 787 said Wednesday that the investigators will expand the scope of their search to include the jet’s circuit wiring after finding part of its installation to be “unusual.”

    The investigating team discovered that the circuit wiring of the burned battery and another one were connected, even though this is unusual in airplanes, Norihiro Goto, chairman of the Japan Transport Safety Board said at a news conference. He added that the JTSB has already notified Boeing and All Nippon Airways Co. 9202.TO -0.52% of the finding and is seeking feedback from the aircraft maker.

    He also stressed that the new finding has little to do with the overheating, since the battery system has a diode module to block any reverse current. As the JTSB has found nothing wrong with the module, it is believed to have functioned normally, he said. Still, the chairman said he is concerned there may be other irregularly installed circuitry.

    Masahiro Kudo, the JTSB’s chief investigator said at a separate briefing, that the unusual circuit wiring may have affected the digital flight data recorder’s measuring of voltage in the burned battery. He added that if affected, the voltage of the battery might have dropped to a lower level than shown by the flight data.

    A more accurate voltage reading could be crucial in helping the JTSB make progress with its investigation, he added. The batteries under investigation come from an ANA 787 forced to make an emergency landing in western Japan on Jan. 16 with battery trouble.

    ++++

    Yep all wiring done by lowest bidder – Systems Integration lab not needed on 787 cuz we can do it all on computer ( between games of HALO ) -

    That kind of issue should NEVER happen !!!

    Faster-cheaper – wiring done by your local car stereo installer !!

    • Funny – I was thinking about exactly this kind of mis-wiring on my way home last night, since the car in front of me had cross-talk causing all main lights to flash when he indicated left, indicators to come on when he braked, and all sorts of strange flashing when he indicated left and braked at the same time!

      I’m still open to the possibility that the electrical system in general is responsible for all of this, considering all the other electrical issues there have been before the two battery incidents. Moisture may be lending a helping hand as well.

  17. Andreas :
    The guys who went up in that plane probably served in Bomber Command during the war.

    Boeing could always borrow some test pilots and flight test engineers from Bombardier. :)

    Anecdote:

    In 1980, six years before Bombardier acquired Canadair, they were doing flight tests over the Mohave Desert with one of the Challenger prototypes.

    At 17,000 ft, with the centre of gravity moved aft, they initiated a stall which quickly developed into a deep stall. They lost control of the aircraft and both engines flamed out. They deployed the anti-spin parachute and it did what it was supposed to do; but when they tried to jettison the chute the ejection system failed.

    The flight test engineer and co-pilot bailed out. The captain tried to restart the engines but was unsuccessful, so he also bailed out, but the airplane was now only 150 ft from the ground. His parachute did not have time to open and he lost his life. The other two crew members survived.

    Note:

    A similar aircraft to the Challenger, the Golfstream GS650, was conducting a takeoff performance test in 2011 with one of the two engines turned off to simulate an engine failure. The aircraft stalled and crashed. The four crew members died (2 test pilots + 2 test engineers).

    • afair 1 VFW 614 was lost during testflights ( engine induced flutter ),
      also one A330 crashed during testflights ( crew overload during testing of single engine ops.)

  18. Don Shuper :
    Systems Integration lab not needed on 787 cuz we can do it all on computer ( between games of HALO ) -

    Really? I don’t believe that. Show me the money Don!

    • Why not go to the source ? its called the Boeing company

      There have been many posts and blogs from worker bees that make the same claim- SIL was NOT used for a lot of the same things it was used for on 777.

      I’m sure BA would be glad to verify just what SIL issues were used on 787

      That is of course if anyone from the press asks

      • Chuckle – cant make this UP

        go to http://www.boeing.com/787-media-resource/docs/Sinnett-TOS-Deck.pdf

        and read page 15 of 26

        as to how a battery works ! The power point rangers strike again !

         A battery is essentially a
        container of chemicals that
        releases electrons.
         Batteries have two terminals –
        positive and negative.
         When the negative and positive
        terminals are connected, a
        chemical reaction occurs that
        results in the flow of electrons.
         The flow of electrons is called current and is measured in amps.
         As more current flows through the item being powered, the battery
        is delivering more power.

        great and basically correct explanation by Chief engineer

        However the diagram shows a sort of D cell battery (OK )

        and a screw socket spiral florescent lightbulb like you are supposed to be using in your reading lamp- room lamp etc at home !

        In my part of the world – such sockets are rarely used for DC – instead most common is 110 VAC

        And normally green is used for ground or white

        and black is used for power so they got that part mostly right

        guess it was the only light bulb available in the power point catalog !!

        No doubt the 787 wiring is done by vendor and by the part time workers at stereos r us – put a new sound system in yur car Dude ??

        I hesitate to read the rest . .

      • Interesting – while the document mentions the following

        Laboratory testing of battery system
         +5,000 hours – demonstrated normal operations and simulated
        failures including baking the battery to induce overheating, crush
        testing and puncturing a cell with nail to induce short circuit
        Laboratory testing of integrated power system
         +25,000 hours – demonstrated interaction of various system
        elements in normal operations and simulated failures in two
        laboratories

        Nowhere can I find what Boeing typically referrs to as the IRON BIRD re 787

        except here

        http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/july/ts_sf11.pdf.
        Boeing employees appear tiny as they look into the huge …
        … As with the 777 iron bird, the 787 ITV supports both software and hardware
        integration to validate airplane level functionality prior to ground and …

        and the downloaded picture is NOT what it claims
        but here are some interesting comments on page 42

        The 787 Integration Test Vehicle (ITV) – the type of facility
        commonly referred to as an “iron bird” – was built on one-third
        the space previously occupied by the 777 iron bird. An “airplane”
        that never leaves the ground, the ITV is made up of actual components
        of the flight control and hydraulic systems as well as flight
        deck, avionics and maintenance systems; to ensure all the integrated
        parts of these systems work together seamlessly.
        While the 777 iron bird could only run one test at a time, the 787
        ITV has three complete ship sets of airplane flight controls electronics
        and can connect to all or portions of the flight controls actuators
        and hydraulic systems concurrently. Additionally each test
        system can test with simulated hydraulic and flight controls actuators.
        As with the 777 iron bird, the 787 ITV supports both software
        and hardware integration to validate airplane level functionality
        prior to ground and flight operational testing. The 777 Iron Bird
        was dismantled and surplused in 2002 to make room for the 787
        ITV, 787 Power Lab and Environmental Control Systems Labs.

        yet every other program commercial and military uses or used an IRON bird.

        But NOT the 787 – separate ” labs ”

        Whats in a name ???

      • interesting pdf.
        p22.1: gives the reference to start up currents that I saw on a.net. 150A for 787 15A for 777.
        p22.2: the hermetically sealed info for Li-Ion and NiCd is either wrong or missleading ?
        p22.3: the nominal voltages are pulled from a dark smelly place.
        for Li-Ion the max cell voltage is given for NiCd the nominal ( midrange) voltage. comparable max voltage would be 20% higher.
        I would thus assume that the given current numbers (p22.1) are similarly enhanced in a biased way.

        p23.1 : a non representative batterie is shown ( different connector layout)
        p25.1 the funny numbers for “experience” .. “myriads of hours”

        Why can’t Boeing for once give balanced information?
        Why must they taint/invent data on every occasion?
        Compulsory liar syndrome ?

        • Uwe :
          interesting pdf.
          p22.1: gives the reference to start up currents that I saw on a.net. 150A for 787 15A for 777.
          p22.2: the hermetically sealed info for Li-Ion and NiCd is either wrong or missleading ?
          p22.3: the nominal voltages are pulled from a dark smelly place.
          for Li-Ion the max cell voltage is given for NiCd the nominal ( midrange) voltage. comparable max voltage would be 20% higher.
          I would thus assume that the given current numbers (p22.1) are similarly enhanced in a biased way.
          p23.1 : a non representative batterie is shown ( different connector layout)
          p25.1 the funny numbers for “experience” .. “myriads of hours”
          Why can’t Boeing for once give balanced information?
          Why must they taint/invent data on every occasion?
          Compulsory liar syndrome ?

          +++++

          How many MBA and Power point rangers do you believe know the difference between power- voltage- amps- watts- AC-DC frequency generator -starter or probability of getting heads 20 times in a row versus odds of the same event.

          ever hear of lies, dammn lies, and statistics?

          IMO —The sad thing is that these same people are allowed to put out such garbage for the great unwashed- and have more than the usual power to set the tone and count the beans priorities over common sense and old fashioned – out of date things like physics, ohms law, heat transfer, and the like

          The document you are reading I believe is proof .

      • Forgetting for the moment the diffference between a SIL ( which BA did claim to have- somewhat peicemeal ) and a real IRON Bird ( which they did not have AFIK and which I had misnamed as an SIL ) I find the following link of some interest- although IMO somewhat biased and perhaps lacking in credibility for various not so obvious reasons – even so I think it is worth adding to the discussion and letting those here make up their own mind

        http://business.time.com/2013/02/20/japan-probe-finds-miswiring-of-boeing-787-battery/

        and especially parts two and three by ‘ flysafe ‘

        starting with

        flysafe
        3 hours ago

        Part two:In an attempt to keep battery weight to a bare minimum, Boeing arrived at a solution that would embarrass many teenage hobbyists who build cooling systems for their home computers; Boeing’s configuration guarantees overheating, and ensures that an individual battery thermal event will spill over to neighboring cells, first by shared heat and then by catastrophic failure in the ensuing fire . . . .

  19. a380 :
    And one Comet into a water tank until the air frame EXPLODED after about 10’000 cycles.

    Same water tank tests were done on 707 and If I recall 727- though I dont think any exploded.

    results were the forging surrounding the windows on all subsequent aircraft

    and ‘ high blow” tests on every BA plane during the manuf cycle ( usually on 2nd or third shift to find leaks, etc )

    • Don’t you remember the Guillotine Test?

      Boing had a film of an original Comet fuselage versus a 707 fuselage. Both fuselages were pressurized and a huge blade would come down and slice through the respective fuselages. Of course the Comet fuselage would blow itself to pieces, like it had a tendency to do before it was beefed up. But the remarkable thing is that the 707 fuselage stayed composed and only lost its pressurization. The whole demonstration would immensely impress the customers and the journalists. That’s how the 707 legend started and how Boeing became synonym with ruggedness.

      • …That’s how the 707 legend started and how Boeing became synonym with ruggedness…

        not quite – the ruggedness bit came about during WW2 with many cases of bombers coming back without tails and damaged wings and sliced AP body parts.

        and then one of the early 707 flights across the atlantic slipped out of autopilot- the captain was back in the cabin, the co pilot was running fuel figures and did not notice

        Went into a death spiral ( at night )

        Pulled out at low altitude with high g loads which bent the wings and popped a few rivets.

        Landed in Greenland ? and was repaired and put back into service. Turned out it had a slightly lower fuel consumption than the rest of the fleet

        And a procedure change was made to ensure at least one pilot-copilot was on oxygen – and no more captain visits to passengers.

        Had it disappeared- the 707 may well have been a failure.

  20. Don Shuper :
    How many MBA and Power point rangers do you believe know the difference between power- voltage- amps- watts- AC-DC frequency generator -starter or probability of getting heads 20 times in a row versus odds of the same event.
    ever hear of lies, dammn lies, and statistics?

    Bill Allen, historically one of Boeing’s best president, was not an engineer but a lawyer. When he had an important decision to take it would gather his top men in a conference room and would ask them, one by one, to say what they thought was the best course of action. So each individual had to speck up his mind while every other in the room listened. As each person was speaking, the vast majority of them engineers, Allen would write down some notes and occasionally ask a pertinent question. The session would last until each and everyone had spoken individually.

    When Allen was satisfied that everything had been said he would reveal his decision. There was no PowerPoint, only the power of making your point.

  21. Don Shuper :
    The ruggedness bit came about during WW2 with many cases of bombers coming back without tails and damaged wings and sliced AP body parts. And then one of the early 707 flights across the atlantic…

    My story fits neatly between your two examples and is part of a heroic mythology that we have come to associate with the Boeing name. In the minds of older people that will never change despite all the bad publicity surrounding the Dreamliner.

    But it might be different for the younger generation, many of whom have only seen the bad side of Boeing since the mid nineties, and which peaked with the grounding of the 787 fleet. The present situation could potentially cause irreparable damage to Boeing’s reputation. There is a genuine possibility that Boeing might louse its aura of respectability in the minds of many young people.

    • …There is a genuine possibility that Boeing might louse its aura of respectability in the minds of many young people…

      Right comment – wrong tense – it has ALREADY lost whatever aura it had.

      The book ‘ turbulence ‘ did an good and mostly accurate job of documenting that.

      And BTW- my own Bill allen story – I was there

      In the mid-late 60′s- BA was bidding on the SST- which they eventually won.

      I was working in manufacturing research at the time – working riveting and drilling of titaniumn- Boeing had made a one wing-body full size mockup with surrounding Dog and pony show items. before the big event ( visits by selection teams, etc ) managers – execs of various areas were scheduled to give their 10 to 15 minute dog an pony show in areas around the mockup. So multiple ‘ practice ‘ sessions were set up – and as the big date came close – the ‘ final show was to be given to the …Boeing Board !!

      For my area- Bud Hurst- VP of Manufacturing – and an old machinist who worked his way up was to give his pitch. The big day for the BOD arrived, and first up was Bill Allen to give a speech to the worker bees etc who would then be dismissed and the dog and pony show to start. Bill on the podium said – …. he had been informed that Bud Hurst had refused to give his presentation to the Board since he (Bud) did not believe in practice sessions before executives before the big day was appropriate or worthwhile . Bill then said he understood, and had complete faith in Bud doing a good job!

      I cannot imagine any executive at Boeing standing up like that today – or in any day within the last 15 years or so.

      Boeing has changed – but for the worse !!

  22. Normand Hamel :
    Flysafe? What are you referring to Don?

    Flysafe is the person who made 2 comments to the story in the link I provided

    his/her claim is that he/she is an aerospace safety type/consultant of some kind

    But I find some of his/her comments to be incomplete- or just plain biased and wrong

    even so, he/she does have a few good points

    its a case of I suggest – ‘ YOU” collectively decide ;-P

  23. Boeing Fix in work a new battery box according to Seattle Times

    http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020398575_boeingboxesxml.html

    Originally published Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 7:48 PM

    Boeing seeks FAA’s OK for permanent 787 battery fix

    A small team of top machinists at Boeing’s Auburn plant is building high-strength containment boxes for the lithium-ion batteries on the 787 as part of a redesign to get the planes flying again as soon as April.

    By Dominic Gates

    Seattle Times aerospace reporter

    Boeing on Wednesday instructed a small team of top machinists at its Auburn parts plant to begin building new, high-strength containment boxes for the lithium-ion batteries on its 787s as part of a redesign intended to get the planes flying again as soon as April.

    goes on . . .

    • All is fixed, this is the final fix:
      “A congressional aide said Boeing representatives in one such meeting “were adamant that it will be a permanent fix, and rejected reports that mentioned a temporary fix.” They also cited the April target date, the aide said.” ( from Don’s link )

      Harump.
      If FAA bolts will the Japanese authorities, EASA and friends do the donkey thing?

      • For those who believe Boeing – please raise your hand ! YOU there ! I want to hand you this neat power point presentation- brochure about this great land deal of oceanshore property in Oaklahoma – site of a future Aircraft carrier overhaul base, be sure to get in on the ground floor. I’ll provide two free tickets to the dreamliner gotcha cafe with a free standing fireplace .

  24. Boeing 787 is doing bettter then Cessna Citation CJ4 ?
    Donald R. Sadoway, a materials chemistry professor at M.I.T. “I am not hearing anything about how make that battery fire-resistant.”
    http://nyti.ms/YQ87eo
    What inside a Lithium-ion battery?
    http://bit.ly/V3LwMm
    Boeing is using Lithium-ion-battery due to it weight of 63 pounds and its price of $1600 aka a Bar-q in a blue that generate more smoke, then the CEO and board of directors
    Cessna Citation CJ4 last year has remove lithium ion batteries form the aircrafts and no other Boeing aircraft uses Ion-battery
    Airbus, Gulfstream, will not used lithium ion batteries
    In 2007 Boeing was required to meet the FAA proposed special condition for 787 to receive the 787 Aircraft Type Certificate, whic will includes:
    • A stronger, sealed containment box enclosing the eight battery cells
    • A system of venting tubes that in case of an incident would channel any flammable vapors or liquids directly out of the airplane
    • Continuous monitoring of temperature and voltage of individual cells within the battery
    • Better thermal separation of the cells, with some barrier such as high-temperature glass inserted between them
    http://1.usa.gov/10jxVlE
    Has the scientific property of lithium ion batteries that similar to nitroglycerin or soil rocket fuel has changed over night!
    The energy provided by the cell is equal to the voltage times the charge. Each gram of lithium represents Faraday’s constant/6.941 or 13 901 coulombs. For a voltage of 3 V, this gives 41.7 kJ per gram of lithium, or 11.6 kWh per kg. THIS IS A BIT MORE THAN THE HEAT OF COMBUSTION OF GASOLINE, BUT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE OTHER MATERIALS THAT GO INTO A LITHIUM BATTERY AND WHICH MAKE LITHIUM BATTERIES MANY TIMES HEAVIER PER UNIT OF ENERGY.
    http://bit.ly/V3LwMm
    All this was original requirement for the 787 in 2003-2007 for Boeing to receive the 787 Aircraft Type Certificate Aug 26, 2011
    Boeing is not an FAA approve battery manufacture! Who will issues the FAA form8110-3 alone with the 12 -24 month of testing to get the Aircraft Type Certificate for 787
    How did this lithium ion batteries lab rat get out of its cage?
    Placing the lithium ion batteries in a stronger, sealed containment box, with vented and a sensor, thermal separation of the cells is about the same as using 3M 600 mph fire proof duct tape also it has the FAA requires for the past 30 years
    There is NO Fire Extinguisher can put out a Lithium-ion batteries fire on board an aircraft!
    In the past aircraft have used bleed air cooling but for the LRU, the 787 is using LIQUID COOLING
    I have yet to see any liquid coolant lines going to the lithium-ion battery, or vent or drain tune or fire deflection on the aft battery
    Is boeing a FAA approvel batteries manufauring and who will issuses the FAA form 8110-3 to obtain the Aircraft Type Certificate
    Where is all the Boeing testing from the 18 to 24 months flight test programs from boeing System Integration Laboratory in Seattle that required in 2007!

    Boeing is bigest best propaganda company

    That why its using Lithium-ion-battery for all the smoke its put out !

Leave a Reply: Note Reader Comment Rules

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s